What's wrong with Lug Rigs?

Teddy, I didn't say there was one absolute truth for all circumstances. That doesn't answer the question about why we should believe that (according to the lug-is-faster theory) just about EVERY designer and EVERY sailmaker and EVERY sailor in EVERY development class for EVERY year of the past 100 or so has been getting it wrong.

You don't seem to have answered the question about why they would have all got it as wrong as you claim for so long. Do you think Nigel Irens is a fool? If they are not then can you please tell us why Nigel used what you claim to be a slower rig on his racing boats, and a faster rig (lug) on his cruisers.

The information I can find out indicates that it's not a question of whether the lost lift behind the mast is outweighed by the drag of the bare mast. It's that there's an extra factor, in that the mast itself produces lift when coupled with a sail. Then there is the fourth factor, which is that a very fine leading edge (as on a sail without a spar on the leading edge) is prone to stalling.

Yes, a computer program can give incorrect results. So can a wind tunnel test, as Gentry says. So why apparently rely on the tunnel and not the computer, when the real world says the computer is right?

Berg, you've had some responses to that. No one has said that bermudans need jibs. Racing lugs often had jibs too. If you want to see how a bermudan rig can go without a jib, look at a Moth or an A Class catamaran. Then tell us all the Mothies are ****** who should have lugs, as some people apparently think........

This is getting to be one of those rather tiresome exchanges where one side does research and produces reports from qualified people, costing from qualified people, reports from designers and sailmakers, historical information and a tiny bit of practical experience, and the other side just goes "nope, nope, nope, nope" without producing a shred of evidence to back up their case.


EDIT - dead right, Upch. Keeping the luff tight enough would be a nightmare too - which is one reason that experienced lug sail sailmaker Todd Bradshaw reckons lugs are slower on high performance boats.

 

That's because its a "How long is a piece of string" question without a meaningful answer. As CTs photos of those splendid Int 12s demonstrate its certainly possible to have as expensive a lug sail rig as you could possibly desire, and the same is true, of course of the bermudan rig. Equally there have been some spectacularly cheap but also nasty rigs of both types marketed that serious sailors would be unlikely to countenance.

For a racing boat the bermudan sloop is normally preferred, and one of the reasons you can say that is because a racing craft is focused very tightly on the single factor of performance round the cans and other factors are of minimal value. For a recreational craft: well, to be honest I think anyone who claims there is a superior rig is, well, at best naive. Each rig type has its own virtues and disadvantages, practical and aesthetic, and as an owner one is free to balance all those factors and pick the compromise that best suits oneself. "Because I think the boat looks good like that" is a perfectly satisfactory answer to the question "Why did you choose that rig?" If I get round to building the replica Viking longboat that I keep thinking would be a nice thing to do it sure as hell won't have a bermudan sloop rig, and if I built a replica of a Victorian racing canoe it might well have a lugsail, lugsailed yawl in fact, because that would be an appropriate rig for that craft, and I were using it for river sailing then that style of rig would have distinct advantages for that kind of sailing.

 

That was answered in previous post allready (4,11,13) and is the reason why I won't have lug sail. It takes too much time and hands to do anything else but sail on a single tack, for single hander except dinghies for fun a definite nono. Same applies for racers..

BR Teddy

 

The most popular lug in the world takes no longer to tack than a sloop. If the lug was as efficient as you claim then it would be easy to make even an extreme dipping lug fast to tack with modern technology, such as a U shaped track extending forward of the mast to control the tack line. And tacking isn't exactly a high priority on oceanic courses.

 

How about reefing one when in the weather and a bit hurry?

 

If you say that standing lugs tack slowly, are labour intensive and cannot be reefed then why in the world did YOU claim they were "better than Marconi close hauled" in the first place?????? It's particularly odd, one may add, when it seems that there are almost no modern theories or tests that indicate that the 'clean leading edge' works better than a mast.

Actually, though, there probably would be no great problem reefing a standing lug with modern equipment - it would be better than a reefing headsail which some top-class sailmakers have told me may be highly practical with modern membrane sails if not for the fact that the foot of a reefed jib can destroy guardrails. That would be much less of an issue, probably, with a lug. The lug rig designers and sailmakers don't seem to find it a massive issue.

 

Aerodynamically it's better, in practice not so much just becouse of the handling issues. If we were sailing in steady wind with only seldomly or not at all tacking it wins, given everything else remains the same. Those circumstances however are rare. Why I said what I said was response for the false beliefs about lug in the beginning of this thread (post 2)I was never saying it being a winner of the triangles or perfect sails for leisure.

I'd like to see simple and reliable reefing system for lug..

BR Teddy

 

The Standing Lug, with a Boom, can be and has been roller reefed, with a relatively simple spool system. Matt's Paradox and Enigma designs use this system.

 

"The bad tack" theory is wrong. Let me explain specifically.

We have 70 odd Oz Geese sailing in the Philippines now.



There is regular racing. And there have been three National championships. 17, then 27 then 22 boats.

Some are rigged to the port side and others to starboard. The boats mostly belong to a common pool so we get to swap boats regularly.

The sailors have a well established pecking order, so the regular sailors know who they are as fast as and who is good at what.

So we have equally good sailors sailing boats rigged to port and starboard and swapping boats.

Our Experience is contradictory to the argument that the "lug is worse" on the sail to windward because of either

1. The crease in the sail
2. The separation bubble from the mast on the leeward side

Sailing Performance
With repeated club racing over 4 years we find zero difference between the sail to windward and the sail to leeward between experienced sailors. We find some small difference for beginner/intermediate sailors.

Sailing "Feel"

Sail to Windward of Mast
Boat has a wide groove, can go up or down without losing speed. Feeling of continuous and unremitting power. Boat accelerates well out of the tack. Anybody can sail the boat upwind well.

Now, why would this normally be considered "the bad tack". Only reason I can think of is as an attempt to explain the general performance difference from thinking about it rather than experimenting or experiencing the difference.

Sail to leeward of the Mast
It is very hard to find the groove. Also the sheeting angle is shallower if the boom is trimmed to the corner of the transom because of the offset of the mast.

Steering has a very vague feeling - hard to centre on the groove.

Solution is to remember the sound of the hull at normal speed of the other tack and point down and ease until the same speed is reached. Then can start winding in sheet to point up. But it is easy to drop out of the groove again - so fall off, re-accelerate and point again.

However, sailing by this method the speed and pointing angle is equal with the other tack - so a difference of "feel" rather than a speed difference.

 

I'm seeing some parallels here

 

Some additional on sail settings in light of racing the Geese over the last 5 years. Not that we got much racing in last year. Grumble.

The advantage of the Bermudan rig is that the downhaul/cunningham controls are separate from the vang.

With the balance lug the two are combined into the downhaul. There is no real way of separating them out. (There is one actually and I plan to try it this year).

One typical situation is rounding the top mark after setting up the downhaul so you don't get the Throat to Clew crease to show the upper and back part of the sail is falling off to leeward on the upwind leg. To do that, have to tighten the downhaul enough that the depower crease doesn't appear. Can be quite a bit of tension in stronger winds. Then you go around the top mark, ease the mainsheet and the opposite crease appears from tack to head And the sail is overflattened. This means a bit of time before the race doing some upwind to make sure the depower crease is gone and then heading downwind to make sure the other crease doesn't appear is time well spent. So you can't do the deep less twisted sail thing for reaching when the outhaul is released.

Or in very light winds with deep sails can't pull the cunningham on with a loose vang to gether the sail depth by the luff and have still have a well twisted flattish sail.

That is one of the advantages of the lower CofE ... it is possible to have some more area to make up for these inefficiencies .. or at least some of them.

It is somewhat compounded on the Geese because they have 89sq ft in the mainsail. Which is nice downwind in any breeze, but can means the solo skippers (many are sailed two up) have their work cut out and that the mainsail really does need to be well flattened. Rather be depowered a bit downwind than overpowered upwind any time.

Best Regards
MIK